Theres a steep irony in someone doing government controlled work idealizing a system where the work they do would likely not exist. Who exactly would be mandating/funding the existence, operation, or regular testing of a sewage plant in an anarchist society?

Society is poorly designed in the general sense, sure. It could be vastly improved and people could have more liberty wrt a lot of things. But left to their own devices people on average would not choose to mandate water treatment. Even if they somehow did, providing no central system of oversight for making sure that it happens would all but guarantee it doesnt get accomplished.

Its ridiculous how many people take critical aspects of society for granted and assume they would continue to exist in a world where everyone does whatever the fuck they want without any central planning or control. In many places around the world people already dont have access to fresh/clean water for this exact reason…

Look at the libertarian experiments that have all failed spectacularly, like Grafton, NH. Mfs couldnt even agree to not feed the bears or dispose of their trash appropriately. And that doesnt require some massive infrastructure project to accomplish. The greater good often necessitates protecting people at large from their own stupidity, otherwise your liberties are quickly diminished by your neighbor’s negligence

Precisely. The original post shows there could still be labor willing to do the work, but it does does not address how that work would be funded. Even if the labor was free there are resources required to build and maintain that plant that are not free. Where do those resources come from?

Wait till you hear about the anarchist that loves going into the mines with toxic gases and all to get the resources for the sewage maintainer guy.

Let’s see; keep things running by going into a mine and digging out something that is needed with the proper safety gear, or going into a mine and digging out something with only the safety gear your boss couldn’t convince the the government to require.

Such hard choices…

Yeah, now you just need someone that has a passion for manufacturing safety gear!

You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…

No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.

The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you’re gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you’re probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.

If the other 99-98 other writers don’t have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!

And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.

The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it’s transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.

Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.

The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that’s the case, then it’s no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.

Rapidly formed hierarchies huh? miiight wanna read about early human history.

Hundreds of thousands of years passed before tyrants became the norm

You don’t need tyrants for hierarchies. Tribes had sages and leaders.

Hierarchy is not when you are convinced someone is wise lol. Please read a book

When i say that there were sages in tribes, I don’t mean that there was just a wise guy. I mean that an elder would basically rule the tribe, because everyone would ask him for advice, and there could be consequences if that “advice” wasn’t followed.

Supply evidence for your claim. Modern anthropology basically disagrees with you utterly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe

Under “classifications” plenty of kinds of tribes. Many of them with leaders and hierarchies.

This is a waste of my time. You aren’t interested or wanting to learn, you have a cartoon definition of anarchy in your head, you’ve made no study of human culture and society, you know nothing of the nuanced differences between various cultural groups that have all been lumped under “tribal” and the complex obligations therein, you have not made a study of anything.

Obviously a chief is a chief is a chief, and obviously these structures existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Yep, completel trivial to explain the fascinating details of the egalitarian and not so egalitarian burial traditions we’ve found, the decorated disables bodies, sites like Çatalhöyük showing stable and identical houses for thousands of years.

If you at least tried to explain why I’m wrong instead of “you’re wrong, read a book”, maybe I could use your definition of anarchy instead of mine.

The definition I got from this post is “anarchy is when people do the work that they love and they don’t have to worry about being paid enough for that work”. And I don’t think that would result in a stable society, since the demand for some kinds of labor is very different to the amount of people that “love” to do that work.

The reason I say read a book is because you will not learn anything structured and thoughtful in an internet comment section. Too many voices, different levels of academic education, ages, experience, or seriousness.

The foundation for learning about anything is to go to authoratitative sources, to look up terminology etc. It seems very silly, to the degree that it seems bad faith, to form opinions on an ideology without experiencing it in action or reading anything.

It would be like me criticising the standard model of physics, or the power grid, or whatever. I don’t have an opinion on whether we could do better with the power grid because I have never studied it.

Talking about human nature or historical societies, having never engaged with anthology is like talking about the function of the spleen having never opened an anatomy textbook.

I mean straight up underneath that silly wikipedia page fragment you linked is a high level discussion of the flaws of the “tribe” or “tribal stage” as a lens for analysing societies and history and how it’s not taken super seriously anymore because it doesn’t translate well. You’re apparently confident that you know what a chief is - universally - but you can’t give concrete examples or explain why you think a chief is a small king in the style of absolutist or legalist monarchs with evidence their concrete social roles and privileges.

I mean even in recent history, let alone 10s of thousands of years ago, multiple distinct societies were well documented in the Americas with vastly different structures and degrees of privilege among “chiefs” with some acting more like centralised resource distributors and advisors and some as the small kings you imagine.

Anarchy is the absense of hierarchy, there are many schools of anarchy but generally they all agree that involuntary relations wherein one person is elevated above another in terms or access to goods, participation in society, and often fundamentally (as in how these privileges are preserved) the ability to use coercive violence on others.

A well functioning family is anarchic, a friend group is often anarchic, community organisation are frequently anarchic. It is not stupid, it often works. In times of disaster it is almost always people’s fucking rad ability to self organise voluntarily that steps in and saves the day.